Journal of Sustainable Marketing

Hedonic vs. Utilitarian

Recall that style durability reflects classic versus trendy clothing. Nystrom (1928) categorized fashion products into three categories existing on a spectrum; on one end there is ‘fad’ or ‘micro-trend’, lasting for a very short period, and on the opposite end there is ‘classic’, with ‘normal’ falling in between. The cycle for fads is typically very short-lived, however the classic cycles rarely lose their original adopters, nor do they lack new adopters over extended periods (Carter, 2003; Loschek, 2009).

We propose that heightening utilitarian shopping motivations may increase preferences for style durability or classic (vs. trendy) clothing. Hedonic-utilitarian (H/U) categorization theory proposes that consumer attitudes mainly arise from affective or instrumental motives, forming a bi-dimensional understanding of consumer perceptions and behaviors (Hirschman & Holbrook, 1982; Li, Abbasi, Cheema, & Abraham, 2020). Utilitarian consumption is theorized as being needs-based and goal-directed (Taniguchi, 2019) relating to the need to complete tasks efficiently (Childers, Carr, Peck, & Carson, 2001; Mathwick, Malhotra, & Rigdon, 2001). This theory suggests that when consumers shop with a utilitarian focus, they have a more detailed objective, and subsequently more precise requirements that a product must meet. Accordingly, we predict that these shoppers may give greater consideration to length of wear and may include this factor in their criteria for new clothes. We propose this utilitarian focus may result in a stronger preference for classic clothing.

In contrast, H/U categorization theory states that hedonic consumption is based on shopping experience, consumer’s emotional attachment to the product or service, and focuses on aspects such as enjoyment, adventure, and the need for surprise (Arnold & Reynolds, 2003; Babin, Darden, & Griffin, 1994; Novak, Hoffman, & Duhachek, 2003). Hedonic consumption is goal-ambiguous and emotional, with pleasure emerging as an important aspect of hedonic purchases (Moe, 2003; Schulze, Schöler, & Skiera, 2014). When consumers shop with a hedonic focus, they tend to focus on the desirable and fun aspects of shopping, selecting novel items to meet their need for surprise (Arnold & Reynolds, 2003). Consequently, we propose consumers may consider current styles rather than length of wear, which may lead them to select trendier items. Based on this rationale, we predict that consumers who have a more hedonic focus may have a weaker preference for classic clothing compared to those with a more utilitarian focus.

We encourage future research to draw upon the bi-dimensional categorization outlined in H/U categorization theory, manipulating either a hedonic focus or a utilitarian focus, and then examining the impact on preference for classic clothing as well as testing the effect on actual product choice. If support is found for this relationship, then marketers could incorporate more utilitarian messaging to encourage customers to select more classic pieces, which may increase length of wear and result in more responsible clothing consumption (United Nations, 2024). Within the current fashion landscape, some retailers employ utilitarian messaging. For example, (LANDS' END, 2024), may be viewed as promoting utilitarian motivations by highlighting practical features such as comfort and a variety of use occasions for their “Classic Navy Adult Hooded Pullover Sweater”. Alternatively, some fast fashion retailers promote hedonic motivations (e.g., Cider organizes clothing into “moods”, selecting clothing by feeling colorful, sweet, or magic (Cider, 2023). As noted earlier, style durability does not need to be synonymous with physical durability. As such, consumers can purchase more classic pieces from fast fashion retailers. If support for this prediction is found, we suggest all retailers, even those in fast fashion, could highlight utilitarian motivations to encourage the purchase of more classic items. While fast fashion items may still be less sustainable in their production, if they are more classic styles, they may be worn longer, extending the lifecycle of the product (Casto & Delong, 2019).

Experiential and Material Goods

Another product level factor is experiential versus material (Goodman, Malkoc, & Rosenboim, 2019; Goodman, Selin, Malkoc, & Stephenson, 2016). Though experiential-material theory often employs a dichotomous categorization (Boven & Gilovich, 2003; Gilovich, Kumar, & Jampol, 2015; Nicolao, Irwin, & Goodman, 2009),Goodman et al. (2019) theorizes that it is perhaps better understood as a continuum. On one end of this continuum, there are entirely material purchases. These items are tangible, and consumers purchase these with the intention of acquiring a physical good. Solely experiential products are purchased with the intention of experiencing something intangible lasting for a short period (Boven & Gilovich, 2003; Gilovich et al., 2015; Nicolao et al., 2009).Goodman et al. (2019) explains that there are also those purchases which lie somewhere in between these extremes. For example, purchasing a swimming pool or home theatre were found to be perceived as both material and experiential (Weingarten, Meraner, Bach, & Hartmann, 2022). It is possible that a purchase may be perceived as more experiential or material, based on the reasoning for its purchase; a bottle of wine bought to share with friends at a dinner party may be seen as more experiential than one bought for home consumption (Goodman et al., 2019).

We propose that when products are positioned as more experiential, consumers may prefer trendier items because experiential products are inherently linked more closely to a shorter period. Alternatively, products positioned as more material may encourage a consumer to consider keeping the item for an extended period. Furthermore, drawing from construal level theory (Trope & Liberman, 2010), material purchases made by consumers are likely more concrete and low level (vs. the abstract nature of experiential purchases). These distinctions in construal may lead consumers to focus on objective features and functionalities such as consideration of length of wear, increasing preference for classic clothing. Future research could use experiential-material theory to manipulate whether a shopping task is perceived as more experiential or more material to explore the effects on style durability preferences. For example, focusing a consumer on the purchase of a raincoat for an upcoming trip to Seattle may be viewed as an experiential purchase, whereas focusing on purchasing a raincoat for rainy days could suggest a more material purchase. If results find material positioning increases preference for classic clothing, this positioning could be used by fashion brands to promote the purchase of more style durable items.

Self-Concept Clarity

Since the democratization of fashion, clothing has been used to communicate one’s identity to society (Crane, 2000). Possessions are thought to be an extension of the self (Belk, 1988) as consumers construe meaning from objects, including clothing (Belk, Wallendorf, & Jr., 1989). Consistent with this theorizing, social identity theory is an underpinning throughout the fashion literature (Joung & Park-Poaps, 2013). Individuals hold a multitude of identities which they may seek to express through their clothing consumption (Joung & Park-Poaps, 2013). These identities collectively result in the self-concept (Isaksen & Roper, 2008), which varies in structure and clarity across consumers (Campbell et al., 1996; Savary & Dhar, 2020).

To understand the self-concept and the way this differs amongst people, academics have developed several theories. First, we examine the theory of self-concept clarity, which refers to the extent to which an individual’s beliefs about the self are “clearly and confidently defined, internally consistent, and stable” (Campbell et al.,1996, p.141). Self-concept clarity theory posits that individuals with low self-concept clarity have “unstable, uncertain, or less coherent self-concepts” in comparison to those clearer in their self-concepts (Savary & Dhar, 2020, p. 888). Low self-concept clarity has been associated with low self-esteem (Campbell et al., 1996; Campbell, 1990; Smith, Wethington, & Zhan, 1996), which is an important motivational driver for consumption of clothing and other symbolic goods (Bannister & Hogg, 2004). Additionally, individuals with low self-concept clarity have been found to internalize other people’s expectations more, particularly regarding their appearance (Vartanian, 2009). As such, we theorize that because low self-concept clarity consumers tend to put greater emphasis on other’s opinions, they may focus on trendy clothing that is currently fashionable to meet others’ expectations. In contrast, self-concept clarity theory suggests that consumers with higher self-concept clarity may be more likely to identify clothing that reflects their self-concept with less focus on others’ expectations. Accordingly, they may be less influenced by trends. Therefore, we predict that the higher the self-concept clarity, the greater the preference for classic clothing.

Future research could explore the role of self-concept clarity on classic clothing preferences through manipulation and measurement, using techniques such as those used by Campbell et al. (1996), Hogg, Sherman, Dierselhuis, Maitner, and Moffitt (2007), andMorrison and Johnson (2011). If support is found for this prediction, marketers could seek to heighten self-concept clarity to promote purchase of more classic clothing. This approach may be particularly effective when external events impact one’s self-concept clarity. For example, starting a new job can weaken one’s self-concept clarity, because a person may view who they will be at this workplace as very different from who they currently are (McIntyre, Mattingly, Lewandowski, & Simpson, 2014). Clothing companies could attempt to strengthen the clarity of the self-concept by highlighting that business wear can reflect “your true self” (i.e., minimizing the differences between the person they currently are and who they will be at work), as done in Next’s “Suit Camp” advertisement (Next, 2017) . By trying to increase the consumer’s self-concept clarity, marketers could reduce the likelihood that consumers choose trendier items that they may have selected with lower self-concept clarity.

Self-Concept Continuity

Clarity is one way in which individuals differ in their self-concept, however another self-concept theory may also be relevant to style durability preferences. Self-concept continuity refers to the belief that one’s own identity stays constant over time (Bartels & Urminsky, 2011; Hershfield, 2011; Parfit, 1984; Sedikides, Wildschut, Gaertner, Routledge, & Arndt, 2008). Self-concept continuity theory posits that those who strongly believe that identity stays constant are referred to as having high self-concept continuity. Alternatively, those who do not perceive their self-concept to be stable are referred to as having low self-concept continuity (Rifkin & Etkin, 2019).

Self-concept continuity has been demonstrated to have a variety of consequences on consumption and other consumer behaviors, such as consumer well-being, financial decisions, and choice of symbolic products, including clothing (Bartels & Urminsky, 2011; Hershfield, 2011; Urminsky & Zauberman, 2015; Urminsky, 2017). We theorize that self-concept continuity may also impact style durability preferences such that those with high self-concept continuity may purchase more classic items relative to those with low self-concept continuity. Individuals with high self-concept continuity may have a greater preference for classic clothing because they see their current and future self as similar. As such, they may consider length of wear and be less influenced by current trends that may not be relevant in the future. Alternatively, individuals with low self-concept continuity believe that the person they are today is different from the person they will be in the future. For these consumers, they may be more inclined to adopt trendier items that are relevant to the current self.

To understand the effect of self-concept continuity on preference for classic items, research can manipulate consumers’ self-concept continuity using methods employed byRifkin and Etkin (2019) andHershfield, Taya, Cohen, and Thompson (2012). Support for this proposed effect would identify another method that could be used by marketing practitioners to encourage more classic clothing purchases. Currently, The North Face Back to School campaign, which highlights that the need for a classic backpack is something that will continue throughout many generations, is an example of such a campaign that emphasizes a consistent aspect of one’s self-concept for their lifetime (The North Face, 2019).

Consideration of Future Consequences

A third individual difference that we hypothesize will influence the preference for classic styles is consideration of future consequences. (Strathman, Gleicher, Boninger, & Edwards, 1994) theorizing proposes that consumers with higher consideration of future consequences tend to consider the future outcomes, whether positive or negative, of their immediate actions to a greater extent than those with lower consideration of future consequences. Those who greatly consider future outcomes are willing to sacrifice immediate benefits, or deal with immediate and undesirable costs, to achieve desirable future states. The extent to which an individual considers future consequences of current actions has significant impacts on both current behavior and long-term outcomes (Strathman et al., 1994). For example, prior studies have found that emphasizing trade-offs restrains spending (Frederick, Loewenstein, & O’Donoghue, 2002; Hershfield et al., 2011; Nenkov, Inman, & Hulland, 2008), suggesting that increasing one’s consideration of future consequences increases willingness to make choices that are perceived to result in more beneficial futures.

We propose that consideration of future consequences will also impact preference for classic clothing. Individuals with high consideration of future consequences may consider length of wear and the wasteful consequences of selecting clothing they only wear for a short period while in style. These individuals may therefore select relatively more classic clothing as they may perceive fewer negative consequences of this clothing in comparison to trendier, less style durable items. Alternatively, individuals who do not consider future consequences wish to maximize immediate benefits and do so at the expense of later outcomes. These consumers put more emphasis on the present, which may lead them to select trendier clothes that best represent the current fashion landscape, despite having limited long-term benefits.

Research could explore the role that the consideration of future consequences plays in choosing classic clothing, using manipulation techniques such as those employed byBartels and Urminsky (2015). Future work could consider encouraging consumers to think about how long they will wear clothing items and what will happen to the garment when they finish using it to increase preference for classic clothing. Additionally, there may be differences between encouraging consumers to think about the positive consequences of using classic, more style durable items, versus encouraging consumers to think about the negative consequences of using trendy, less style durable items.